This argument has been going on in some way in all the posts in this category. However, some posts are more directly involved than others.
- A sermon I preached many years ago from Ephesians
- The Genuine Offer of the Gospel
- Hoeksema and Engelsma against the Genuine Offer of the Gospel.
- Gary North against the Free Offer of the Gospel.
- Grace, ingratitude, and grades within common grace.
- The Gospel Offer is Sincere.
- God’s Plan, God’s Attitude, and the Nature of Things.
Basically, I believe my argument has been this:
The reality of reprobation seems to eliminate the possibility of God’s favor toward the reprobate.
Yet reprobation presupposes God’s gracious lovingkindness which sinners are foreordained to reject. Whether this non-saving grace is mere sunlight, or a full-orbed presentation of the Gospel, it represents God’s sincere and genuine love, for which the reprobate will be condemned for rejecting.
Thus, the exegetical findings of Murray in his defense of the genuine offer of the Gospel are not subversive to the truth of God’s absolute predestination.
Our initial evaluation of the relationship between common grace and reprobation stands: without the former the latter could not happen.
Since these entries have focused on John Murray, however, I think there is more that should be dealt with–John Murray’s particular formulations regarding the doctrine of limited atonement.
So more to come.